## SERVED: MAY 14,2014 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS WASHINGTON, DC 

### :!J\1 '},V t

### 5

In The Matter Of: Docket No. FAA-2013-0288 AVIONICS MASTERS, INC. ) ) ) ) ) Respondent Case No. 2012S0190209

ORDER GRANTING THE FAA'S MOTION FORSUMMARYJUDGMENT

OnMarch 10,2014,the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") filed its Motion for Summary Judgment ("Motion"). This Motion sought complete dispositive reliefregarding the alleged violations and the proposed civil penalty. OnMarch 18,2014, Avionics Masters, Inc. ("Respondent") filed the Respondent's ' Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses. Accompanying the Amended Answer was Respondent's Notice ofAppearance ofAttorney. While the Certificate ofService attached to each ofthese documents indicated that a copy was sent viaregular mail to the Judge, no copies ofthe Respondent's Amended Answer orNotice ofAppearance were ever filed orreceived. On April3, 2014 the Office ofHearings staffobtained copies from the public website, www.regulations.gov. On March 26,2014, Respondent's Answer Opposing Complainant's Motion for Summary Judgment was filed ("Answer"). OnApril 7, 2014, the FAA filed an Amendment to Complaint, inwhich it listed certain amendments it was making to its original Complaint. These amendments included an alternate pleafor relief. The FAA did not attach or file an actual Amended Complaint. OnApril 7, 2014, the FAA filed its Reply In Support ofMotion for Summary Judgment ("Reply").OnApril15, 2014 (I0:18am), the Respondent filed a Second Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses inResponse to Administrator's Amended Complaint, and BriefResponse to Reply in Support ofMotion for Summary Judgment. On Aprill5, 2014, the parties convened by telephone for a Summary Judgment Motion Conference, andpresented oral arguments on the FAA's Motion for Summary Judgment. At the conclusion oforal argument, bothparties were given deadlines to file supplemental materials. The FAA was also given a deadline to file an Amended Complaint. The next day, onApril 16, 2014, an Order Setting Deadline for Filing Amended Complaint and Supplemental Materials was filed. OnMay 5, 2014, the FAA filed the following: 1) Supplement onMotion for Summary Judgment ("FAA Supplement"); and; 2) Amended Complaint ("Amended Complaint"). OnMay 8, 2014 the Respondent filed the following: 1) Affidavit ofCharles Hunt Per Court Order Served Aprill6, 2014 Regarding Amount ofPenalty, and 2) Pilot's Guide for the King KAP/KFC 200 Flight Control Systems ("Supplemental Answer"). OnMay 9, 2014, the parties convened by telephone for a second Summary Judgment Motion Conference, and presented additional oral arguments onthe FAA's Motion for Summary Judgment. A. Summary Judgment Requests for Decision The FAA's March 10,2014Motion for Summary Judgment seeks a decision onthe merits ofthe two (2) alleged violations ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations ("FARs"), as well as the FAA'sproposed civil penalty of$7,150. In its Reply, the FAA also alternatively requests a decision onthe merits ofthe two (2) alternatively alleged violations, with a proposed civil penalty of$4,042. B. Standard ofReview for Summary Judgment Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. 

### § 13.218, a party may file motions, including a motion for a decision onthe merits, in advance ofa hearing when a party asserts that there is no disputed material issues offact to be heard. Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. 

### § 13.218(f)(5), any motion for a
Page 2 of 13decision onthe merits prior to a testimonial hearing is reviewed under the same standard as a summaryjudgmentmotion (Civ. R. 56). The purpose ofsummaryjudgment is "to isolate, and thenterminate, claims and defenses that are factually unsupported." Steven Baicker-McKee, et.al, Federal Civil Rules Handbook, West Publishing (2012) (Rule 56). Pursuant to Civ. R. 56(a), a summaryjudgmentmotion may be granted if "the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitledto judgment as a matter oflaw." See, Anderson v. LibertyLobbyInc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986); Holcomb v. Powell, 433 F.3d 889, 895 (D.C. Circuit 2006). In addition, pursuant to Rule 56(f), summaryjudgmentmay also be granted to a non-moving party, after all parties have had notice and a reasonable time to respond. A fact is "material" ifit is capable ofaffecting the substantial outcome ofthe litigation. Holcomb, 433 F.3d at 895; LibertyLobby, Inc., 477 U.S. at 248. A dispute is "genuine" ifthe evidence is such that a reasonable trier offact could return a verdict for the non-moving party. See, Scott v. Harris, 5550 US 372, 380 (2007); Liberty Lobby Inc., 477 US at 248, Holcomb, 433 F.3d at 895. On a motion for summaryjudgment, all evidence and inferences are to be viewed in light most favorable to the non-moving party. However, a non-moving party (e.g., the Respondent herein answering the FAA's Motion) may not rest upon mere denials or allegations inthe pleadings. Pursuantto Civ. R. 56(c), (d), and (e), a non-moving party who wishes to proceed to trial mustrespond to the motion for summaryjudgment, and set forth specific facts sufficientto showthere is a genuine issue for trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986). See also, Citizens State Bankof BigLake v. Transamerica Ins. Co., 815 F.Supp. 309 (D. Minn. 1993); StevenBaicker-McKee, et.al, Federal Civil Rules Handbook, West Publishing (2012) (Rule 56) (anon-moving party may produce materials, and/or cite to materials produced or not produced bythe movant inresisting the summaryjudgment motion). Pursuant to Civ. R. 56 (c)(l)(A), specific facts alleged by eitherparty may be asserted by submitting or citing to a variety ofdocuments and declarations. Materials submitted during summaryjudgmentproceedings must be capable ofbeing offered at trial in an admissible form. Page 3 of13See, Steven Baicker-McKee, et.al, Federal CivilRules Handbook, West Publishing (2012) (Rule 56). Once the movingparty has established a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to show, by affidavit or otherwise, that a genuine dispute ofmaterial fact remains for the fact-finder to resolve. (!d.) On a summaryjudgmentmotion, the court does notrule on the weight oftheevidence. SeeStevenBaicker-McKee, et.al, Federal CivilRules Handbook, West Publishing (2012) (Rule 56) (The court never weighs the evidence, evaluates credibility ormakes findings on disputed facts in summaryjudgmentproceedings.). 

### C. Admissibility ofFAA's SummaryJudgmentFactualProof As part ofits Motion, the FAA submitted ten (10) Exhibits, identified as FAA Exhibits A-J. As part ofits Reply, the FAA submitted one (1) additional Exhibit, identified as Exhibit K. As part ofits May 5, 2014 Supplement, the FAA submitted one (1) additional Exhibit, identified
as Exhibit L. Atthe April15, 2014 Motion Conference, the FAA's Exhibits A-D and F-K were deemed admissible as evidence without objection. The Respondent objected to the admissibility ofFAAExhibitE, onthe grounds it was incomplete. This objection was overruled, and FAA Exhibit E was deemed admissible as evidence and considered. At the May 9, 2014 Motion Conference, the FAA's Exhibit I was deemed admissible as evidence without objection. 

### D. Admissibility ofRespondent's Summary Judgment FactualProof As part ofits March 26,2014 Summary Judgment Answer, the Respondent submitted
one Affidavit ofMr. Charles Hunt, and two (2) Exhibits, identified as Respondent Exhibits 1-2. As part ofits May 8, 2014 Supplemental Answer, the Respondent filed two (2) additional written materials, not specifically marked. OnMay 9, 2014, the Respondent filed an additional Affidavit ofCharles Hunt, which the FAAhad already received earlier, onMay 5, 2014. These Respondent supplemental materials were marked as follows: EXhibit 3 (May 5, 2014 Affidavit of Charles Hunt), Exhibit 4 (May 8, 2014 Affidavit ofCharles Hunt Regarding Amount ofPenalty), and Exhibit 5 (Pilot Guide). Page 4 of.13At the April15, 2014 Motion Conference, the Respondent's Affidavit ofCharles Hunt and Exhibits 1 and 2 were deemed admissible as evidence without objection. Atthe May 9, 2014 Motion Conference, Respondent Exhibits 3-5 were deemed admissible as evidence without objection. 

### E. Primary Federal Regulations Alleged Violated In its Amended Complaint, the FAA primarily alleges that onor about December 22, 2011 the Respondent violated 14 C.P.R.§§ 145.5(a) and 145.201(b). (Am. Compl., 2). Section 145.5(a) is an introductory section that states: No person may operate as a certificated repair station without, orinviolation of, a repair station certificate, ratings, or operations specifications issued under this part. 14 C.P.R.§ 145.5(a) Section 145.201(b) is a specific sectionthat states: A certificated repair station may not maintain or alter any article for which it is notrated, and may not maintain or alter any article for which it is rated ifit requires special technical data, equipment, or facilities thatare not available to it. 14 C.P.R.§ 145.201(b). The FAA's alternatively plead regulatory violations are addressed separately, in paragraphJ, 

### infra. F. Applicable Regulatory Definitions Pursuant to Section 1.1 ofthePARs, the following definitions are applicable: 1. Maintenance means inspection, overhaul, repair, preservation, and the replacement of parts, but excludes preventative maintenance. 2. Preventative Maintenance means simple or minor preservation operations and the replacement ofsmall standard parts not involving complex assembly operations.

Page 5 of13

### G. Dictionary Definitions The FARs do not provide a definition for the word "inspection," which is**conta~ned** inthe FARs definitions ofmaintenance and preventative maintenance. Webster's ThirdNew International Dictionary ofthe English Language, Unabridged, G. 

### & C. Merriam Company (1976) provides common definitions for this word as follows: "Inspection: the act orprocess of inspection: a strict or close examination." 

### H. Evidentiary Discussion and Analysis on the PrimaryAllegations Because 14 C.P.R.§ 145.201(a) is an introductory regulation, this discussion onthe primary allegations is focused onthe more specific regulation of 14 C.P.R.§ 145.20l(b). The four material issues offact involved in assessing an alleged violation of 14 C.P.R. § 145.201(b)
are addressed in sequence below. 1. Is the Respondent a certificated repair station? YES. 

### Itwas undisputed that the Respondent operated an approved, certificated repair station under AirAgency CertificateNo. VIMR095K. (FAA Exh. A; Sec. Am. Ans., 1.) 2. Didthe Respondent maintain an article (i.e., the Gyro) whenthe Respondent either inspected orrepaired the Gyro on or about December 22. 2011? YES. The parties agreed the Respondent's Operations Specifications orAccepted Capability List did not authorize the Respondent to perform maintenance onthe Bendix/King directional gyro, model KG102A, serial number X32301 ("Gyro"). (Am. Compl., 1; Sec. 

### Am. Ans., 2-3.) This section will focus onthe "inspection" portion ofthe FAA'sprimary allegation ofimproper maintenance. As noted earlier herein, 14 C.P.R.§ 1.1 defines "maintenance" as an "inspection, overhaul, repair, preservation, and the replacement ofparts, but excluding preventative maintenance." Thus, the Respondent would have been "maintaining" the Gyro whenit engaged in either an inspection or a repair ofthe component. The FAApresented evidence that on or about December 22, 2011, the Respondent removed the Gyro from the Bendix/King KFC 200 Flight Control System ("Auto Pilot") and

Page 6 of13performed a "Bench check and repair" on it (Mot. 2), as evidenced by the completed Form 8130- 3 (FAA Exh. D) and the Respondent's Work Order 8078. (FAA Exh. E; see also, Mot., 5, 8.) In response, the Respondent admitted that onDecember 22, 2011, ithad issued Work OrderNo. 8078 for the Gyro. The Respondent agreed that ithad performed a "Level 1 inspection" ofthe Auto Pilot, which included a "rudimentary functional test" and inspection of the Gyro (Ans., 2). The Respondent emphasizedthat it had only tested and inspected the Gyro. (Jd. at 3; FAA Exh D.) The Respondent denied the FAA's alternative pleading that ithad performed "repairs" onthe Gyro. (Sec. Am. Ans., 3-4.) Itwas undisputed that Form 8130-3, filled outby the Respondent on December 22, 2011, statedthe following: (1) the Respondent tested and inspected the Gyro; 2) details ofthe "repair"
were onfile; and; (3) the Respondent had returned the Gyro to service. The form was signed by Charles L. Hunt using the repair station's certificate. (Mot., 2; FAA. Exh. D.) Thus, based onthe FARs definition of"maintenance", which includes the act of inspection, itwas undisputed that the Respondent maintainedthe Gyro whenthe Respondent inspected and benchtested the Gyro on or about December 22, 2011. 3. Was the Respondent rated to maintain or alter the Gyro? 

### NO. Itwas undisputed that on or about December 22, 2011, the Respondent's Operations Specifications granted the Respondent a Limited Instrument Rating. (FAA Exh. B.) Pursuantto 14 C.F.R. § 145.61(a) and (b), this limited instrument rating allowed the**Re~pondent** to only perform "specializedmaintenance" on "[i]nstruments ofa particular make and model." Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 145.215(a), the Respondent's Capability List oroperations specificationmanual hadto specifically listthe article(s) onwhich it could perform maintenance. 14 C.F.R. 

### § 145.215(b) provides the manner oflisting: The capability list must identify each article by make and model orothernomenclature designated by the article's manufacturer and be available in a format acceptable to the FAA. In addition, 14 C.F.R. § 145.215(c) requires in part, that an article couldbe listed in the repair station's Capability List only if"the article is withinthe scope ofthe ratings ofthe repair station's certificate, and only after the repair station has performed a self-evaluation in Page 7 of13accordance withthe procedures under§ 145.209(d)(2)." Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 145.215(c), the repair station's self-evaluation was required to demonstrate that the repair station had "all ofthe housing, facilities, equipment, material, technical data, processes, and trained personnel inplace to perform the work onthe article as required by part 145." After conducting the self-evaluation, the repair station was required to "retainonfile documentation ofthe evaluation." 14 C.F.R. § 145.215(c). 

### a) Respondent's Capability Listand Operations Specifications Itwas undisputed that the Respondent's Air Agency Certificate granted it a "limited instrument" rating. (FAA Exh. A.) Itwas also undisputed that its operations specifications allowed itto "Install, Remove, Repair and Replace Instruments" identified in its Capability List (FAA Exh. B.) Itwas undisputed thatthe Respondent's Capability List did not specifically list the Gyro. Itdid, however, list the Auto Pilot. (FAA Exh. C, 15.) The Respondent's Capability List authorized itto conduct a "Levell: Line and/or benchtest, and Installation" ofthe Autopilot. 

### (!d.) b) Respondent's Scope of Authority for Maintenance of the Gyro The Respondent argued that based on its Capability List, it was authorized to "perform a Level 1 inspection and related service ofthe Auto Pilot, which includes rudimentary checks of the components." (Ans., 4.) The Respondent assertedthatthis included authority to bench test the Gyro component as part oftesting the Auto Pilot system for functionality. (R. Exh. 3,**~6.)** Mr. Charles Hunttestifiedthat "benchtesting components" ofthe autopilot system, including the testing ofthe Gyro component, was a "necessary part" ofthe Levell inspection. (R. Exh. 3,**~7.)** "Ifeach component functions properly" during the benchtest, then "itis presumedthatthe autopilot will function properly." (R. Exh. 3,**~6.)** The FAA agreed that the Respondent's Capability List (FAA Exh. C, 15) authorized itto perform maintenance on "some autopilot systems
....whichmay use directional gyros." (FAA Exh. J,**~11).** The Respondent was authorized to perform maintenance on "some autopilot systems" that mightuse directional gyros, such as the specific Gyro indispute inthis case. (FAA Exh. J, 2.) However, the FAA stated that this limited authorization to maintainthe Auto Pilot system, which included the Gyro as a component, meantthat the Respondent was authorized to

Page 8 of13only "install" or "remove"the Gyro, or "perform a functional test ofthe Auto Pilot system" with the directional gyro component installed as part ofthe autopilot system. (FAA Exh. 

### J, 2.) Itwas undisputedthat the FARrequires a certificated repair stationto hold either a Class 3 instrument rating in order to maintain gyroscopic instruments or systems, or a Limited rating which only permits work on certain specific aircraft or components listed in its capability list. (Mot., 4.) Pursuantto 14 C.P.R.§ 145.59(e)(3), a Class 3 Gyroscopic Instrument rating applies to "an instrument or system using gyroscopic principles and motivated by air pressure or ·electrical energy, including automatic pilot control units,

... [and] directional gyros, andtheir parts[.]" Inspector McGlen also testified that the Respondent's limited instrument rating did not include any authority to "maintain [the Gyro], or any other gyros, as reflected intheir Capability List. If [the Respondent] was authorized to maintain the [Gyro], or other gyros, then they would have a section intheir Capability List listing the gyros on whichthey were authorized to work." (FAA Exh. J,**~~9** and 11.) Thus, the Respondent could only "install the directional gyro as part ofthe autopilot system, remove the gyro as part ofthe autopilot system, orperform a functional test ofthe autopilot system with the directional gyro installed." (!d. at**~11.)** 4. Didthe Respondent have the equipment or facilities available to perform the maintenance? NO. FAA Inspector Roger MeGlen explained, among otherthings, that the Respondent did not have the necessary equipmentto even conduct an independent inspection ofthe Gyro. "Inspectingthe gyro itselfrequires an electronic turntable, and [the Respondent] does not have this piece ofequipment." (FAA Exh. J,**~7.)** Inresponse, the Respondent did notprovide any self-evaluation documentation or other evidence to demonstrate that it had the facilities, equipment, personnel and other components needed to properly inspect or benchtest the Gyro as part ofits Level 1 inspectionprocess. 

### I. PrecedentialFAA AdministratorDecision and Analysis In support of its Motion, the FAApointedto the precedential holding of

### In the Matter of RoyalAvionics Systems, Inc., FAA OrderNo. 2002-6 (April 16, 2002). The Respondent did not address this case in any ofits responsive materials. Page 9 of13Like the Respondents in this case, the respondent repair station inRoyalAvionicsheld a Limited Instrument rating which permitted it to maintain autopilots. The repair station argued that its Limited Instrument rating authorized it to maintain flux valves as part ofits overall maintenance ofthe autopilot system. Judge Burton S. Kolko did not find this argument persuasive. He held that the repair station's Limited Instrument rating- permitting 

### itto maintain autopilots- did not include authorization to maintain flux valves. In re RoyalAvionics Systems, DocketNo. CP99WP00021, Initial Decision, at 13 (Apr. 5, 2000). As part ofhis Decision, Judge Kolko pointed outthat the flux valves (also called flux gates) and automatic pilot control units were listed as separate articles for maintenance in the FARs. 14 C.F.R. § 145.59(e)(3); 1 (Mot. 7); In re RoyalAvionics Systems, DocketNo. CP99WP00021, Initial Decision, at 5 (Apr. 5, 2000). Judge Kolko acknowledged thatthe flux valve was "part ofthe autopilot in a broad sense." (!d.) However, Judge Kolko also pointed outthat the flux valve was a "self-contained unit" that was clearly identified by the FARs as requiring special maintenance authorization. (!d.) The FARs created distinct maintenance class ratings so that "onlythose repair stations that have demonstrated an appropriate level ofknowledge and competence" would perform maintenance onthe identified articles. (!d.) Upon appeal, the FAA Administratorupheld Judge Kolka's decision, reiterating thatthe repair station's limited instrument rating did not authorize itto maintainthe flux valve. In the Matter of RoyalAvionics Systems, Inc., FAA OrderNo. 2002-6, at 13 (April 16, 2002). This same factual pattern, and distinction inthe regulations, is present inthe instant case. As noted earlierherein, 14 C.F.R. § 145.59(e)(3) provides that a Class 3: Gyroscopic Instrument rating applies to "aninstrument or system using gyroscopic principles and motivated by air pressure or electrical energy, including automatic pilot control units,

... [and] directional gyros, andtheir parts[.]" Therefore, the holder ofa Class 3 Instrument Rating would be able to maintain any ofthose articles. The Respondent hereinholds only a Limited Instrument Rating limited to those instruments specifically identified in its Capability List. The Respondent's Capability List

1 Atthe time ofdecision, the language ofthe current 14 C.P.R.§ 145.59 appeared in 14 C.P.R. § 145.31. Page 10of13includes the Auto Pilotbut notthe Gyro, which is a separate component ofthe autopilot system. The Respondent acknowledged, inmultiple submissions, that the Gyro was a separate component. 

### (See, e.g., FAA Exh. G; R. Exh. 4,**~4.)** Like the repair station in

### RoyalAvionics, the Respondent was not authorized to maintain the Gyro, and was not authorized to conduct any "inspection" or "benchtest" ofthe Gyro as part ofits Level 1 inspection ofthe Auto Pilot system.After reviewing all factual evidence in a light most favorable to the non-moving party (i.e., the Respondent), the FAA has proved, as a matter oflaw, thatthe Respondent committed the two (2) primary violations alleged inthe Amended Complaint: 14 C.F.R. 

### §§ 145.5(a) and 145.201(b). 

### J. ALTERNATIVE PLEADING- 

### MOOT In the alternative, the FAAalleged that on or about December 22, 2011, the Respondent violated 14 C.F.R. 

### §§ 43.5(a) and 43.9(a)(1) when it completed a Form 8130-3 indicating that the Respondent had repaired the Gyro when the Respondent had not in fact performed a repair, but rather an inspection. (FAA Exh. D.) In response, the Respondent asserted that it had erroneously filled out Form 8130-3. The
erroneous entry inForm 8130-3 hadbeen corrected at a later date. (R. Aff., 2; R. Exh. 1.) The Gyro had never been repaired. Ithad never been installed in an aircraft. (Sec. Am. Ans., 4; R. Exh. 3; R. Aff., 2.) Instead, the Respondent explained that it had only performed a ·"rudimentary" and "functional test" ofthe Gyro during a "Level 1 inspection" ofthe Auto Pilot. (Se.c. Am. Ans. 4, R. R. Aff., 1.) The Gyro had thenbeenplaced into storage. Given the finding thatthe FAA has proved the primary allegations inits Amended Complaint, the alternate pleading is deemed moot. Thus, no further discussion ofthe alternate pleading, orthe parties' submitted evidence onthe alternate pleading, is necessary. 

### K. CIVIL PENALTY The FAAhas proposed a civil penalty of$7,150 for the violations of 14 C.F.R. 

### §§ 145.5(a) and 145.201(b). As evidentiary support for this recommendation, the FAA submitted a partial copy ofits Sanction Guidance Policies (FAA Exh. I), and the Declaration of Page 11 of13Mr. David Dunn, anFAA Regional Specialist (FAA Exh. L). Itwas undisputedthat the Respondent was a small business, and that the alleged violations primarily plead in the FAA's Amended Complaint were covere.d under 49 U.S.C. § 46301 (a)(5)(A). It was also undisputed thatthe proposed $7,150 civil penalty had been calculated utilizing the FAA'spublished Sanction Guidance Policies, and was the minimum amount listed in the maximum range (FAA Exh. I, B-5 and B-21; FAA Exh. L.) Inresponse, the Respondent re-asserted that it had not committed the primary violations alleged. (R. Exh. 4,**~3.)** However, ifit had, then its actions "do not warrant a fine ofmore than $7,000." (Id.) Instead, the Respondent recommended a civil penalty of$935, which is the minimum fine allowed underthe Sanction Guidance Policies, in the minimumrange category. (FAA Exh. I, B-5.) In support ofits request for mitigating circumstances, and a civil penalty belowthe recommended maximum range, the Respondent re-asserted intestimonial evidence that 

### ithadthe authority to benchtestthe Gyro, and that its inspection ofthe Gyro was a "necessary part ofa Level 1test ofa KFC-200." (FAA Exh. 4,**~7.)** In essence, the Respondent argued that its commission ofthe violations should be a mitigating factor. The Respondent provided no authority for this position. After reviewing all factual evidence regarding the proposed civil penalty in a light most favorable to the non-moving party (i.e., the Respondent), the FAAhas proved, as a matter oflaw, thatthe Respondent should be assessed a penalty of$7,150 for the two violations, which is the minimum amount inthe maximum range. L. CONCLUSION Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. §13.218(f)(5) and Civ. R. 56, all oftheparties' admissible Exhibits
were considered, as well as the applicable pleadings and documents. After having heard oral argument onthe Motion, and having reviewing all relevant caselaw, decisions, regulations, statutory authority, motions, pleadings, and being fully advised;

Page 12 of13

### IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. 

### The FAA'sMotion for Summary Judgment is granted. There are no genuine issues of material fact in dispute regarding the charged violations, and the FAA is entitled to judgment as a matter oflaw. 2. The Hearing scheduled for June 10,2014- June 12, 2014, inFort Lauderdale, Florida is cancelled. 3. The Respondent is assessed a total civil penalty of$7,150 for the proven violations of 14 C.F.R. §§ 145.5(a) and 145.201(b). 4. The FAA's alternate pleadings, contained in the Amended Complaint, are deemed moot. 5. This Order shall be considered a final order assessing civil penalty unless either party files a notice ofappeal within 10 days ofservice ofthis Order pursuant to 14 C.F

### .R. § 13.233.

Attachment: Service List

Page 13 of13SERVICE LIST ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

### Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite2Wl0002



### Mr. Christopher R. 

### Stevenson Complainant's Counsel Office ofthe Regional Counsel, ASO-7 Southern Region Federal Aviation Administration P. 

### 0. Box 20636 Atlanta, GA 30320 TEL: 404-305-5200 FAJ<: 404-305-5223 

### Mr. Mohammad Ahmed Faruqui Respondent's Counsel Aerolaw Offices PLLC 633 SE 3rd Ave, Suite 4R Trial Lawyers Building Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 TEL: None Provided FAJ<: None Provided Judge J.E. Sullivan U.S. Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-6941 FAJ<: 202-366-7536 ONE COPY 

### FDMS No. FAA-2013-0288 (Civil Penalty Action)

2 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WIOOO, Washington, DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.